Security Exec: ‘First World Outrage’ About Privacy Is a Joke

Do Americans–particularly those in the tech
industry–really care about privacy? Nawaf Bitar, a security
executive with Juniper Networks, posed this question at the
RSA Conference on
cybersecurity yesterday, and offered a few ideas on how to act if
they want to affect change.

“Our privacy is being invaded. Our intellectual property is
being stolen. The attack on our information is outrageous,”

said Bitar, blaming “criminal organizations, corporate thieves,
hostile governments, friendly governments.” He gave the U.S.
government the benefit of the doubt that the post-9/11 surveillance
systems were well-intentioned but have caused “stunning” invasions
of privacy.

Most Americans would likely agree with the sentiments he
expressed, but Bitar doesn’t think they’re doing anything
meaningful about privacy breaches and are even complicit for
standing by as it continues.

“It’s easy to talk about outrage. Liking a cause on Facebook is
not outrage. Retweeting a link is not outrage,” he said,
contrasting such forms of “First World outrage” with historical
anti-government action, such as the Tiananmen Square protests and
the self-immolation of Tibetans.

Bitar is correct in that internet activism is sometimes without
impact.
Critics of slacktivism can
point to
studies that show Facebook “likes” for charities actually
result in less financial support. But, physical protests aren’t
necessarily a better way to solve internet issues. For example,
“The Day We Fight Back” rallies against the National Security
Agency earlier this month
fell flat, whereas the web-based initiatives against the Stop
Online Piracy Act in 2012 played a major
role in preventing the bill from moving forward.

As PC Magazine
notes, the security executive “only briefly touched on
solutions” of his own.

Bitar called upon the crowd to reevaluate whether or not privacy
is a “real” value or just a “stated” one. He also suggested that in
order to maintain a “moral high ground,” industry workers would
have to resist waging cyberwars of aggression and instead could
develop “defenses” that would “interfere with attackers… break
algorithms… [and] disrupt data collection” to the point that
malicious entities would get frustrated and give up.